fleet_password_account_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating that the rotation endpoint is 'deliberately not wired' and by flagging a gotcha that unknown response fields degrade to empty. This goes beyond simply echoing the annotations, providing genuine behavioral insight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly structured with a [READ] tag, a purpose statement, a usage note, a gotcha, and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. The format is easy to scan and parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional params, no output schema, read-only), the description covers all essential context: what it does, return format summary, read-only guarantee, a gotcha, and parameter meanings. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'limit' is explained with default and None behavior, and 'target' is described with its config source and default behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List managed password-account status across the VCF fleet.' It explicitly states the scope (fleet-wide) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fleet_certificate_list and fleet_domain_list by focusing on password accounts. The 'Use this to review...' sentence reinforces the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use this to review which fleet accounts Operations manages and their rotation/expiry status') and hints at what it doesn't do (rotation). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.